The most recent Laurie List of dishonest cops can be seen here: https://indepthnh.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/November-5-2024-EES-List.pdf
By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
A former New Hampshire State Police Trooper trying to get off the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule claimed the lies that got him fired are the result of a medical issue that should not be used against him.
That excuse is not enough for the New Hampshire Supreme Court to remove the trooper from the list of officers with known credibility issues, as the Court ruled against his appeal in a case order released Tuesday.
The Court is working through dozens of EES, also known as the Laurie List, appeals in the wake of the 2021 law change that made the list of problematic police officers public for the first time. Under the new law, officers can challenge their placement using John Doe lawsuits.
The John Doe trooper in Tuesday’s decision reportedly lied to his supervisor about using his personal cell phone to communicate with people he had arrested, according to the decision.
Sometime in 2018, the trooper texted a woman he had arrested using his personal cell phone, letting her know she left her personal possessions in his cruiser. The conversation ended up getting reported to his supervisor who met with him in June of that year. During the June meeting the trooper claimed he had never done that before.
“The lieutenant asked if the plaintiff had previously contacted other members of the public using his personal cell phone. The plaintiff answered in the negative,” the decision states.
However, the lieutenant soon learned of an extensive text conversation with another person the trooper had arrested in May of 2018, also using his personal cell phone. When confronted, the trooper apologized for not being “truthful” during the June meeting.
The personal text issue progressed to a meeting with division commanders who decided he could not rebut the fact he lied to his lieutenant. The trooper was terminated and placed on the EES.
The trooper filed a complaint in 2021 seeking to be taken off the EES, arguing he didn’t lie to his lieutenant because during the June 2018 meeting, he didn’t recall the other text conversation. He also argued his later apology for being “untruthful” about the May text conversation shouldn’t count since he was trained in the military to apologize when confronted by superiors.
After a superior court judge denied that argument, the trooper filed a motion for reconsideration making a new argument that if he did lie, it wasn’t his fault because a disability leaves him unable to remember facts while, at the same time, makes him susceptible to lying.
“He argued, for the first time, that his placement on the EES is improper because he suffers from a disability that caused him to forget the prior text messages. He further argued that the symptoms of his disability, including ‘anxiety’ and ‘impaired judgment,’ resulted in him admitting to lying despite not having done so, and that he did not intentionally misstate the truth,” the decision states.
The disability argument was also denied, and the trooper appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices ruled that whatever the excuse, the trooper lied during the course of an investigation into his conduct, and ought to be on the EES.
“Regardless of the justifications offered by the plaintiff, his conduct warrants inclusion on the EES because it reflects on his ‘general credibility,’” the justices wrote. “Further, despite the plaintiff’s assertion that his disability caused him to admit that he had been untruthful with the lieutenant, his admissions to being untruthful with the lieutenant could still foreseeably be the subject of inquiry for impeachment purposes … Therefore, whether the plaintiff’s conduct was caused by his disability, his military training, or a combination of both, it does not negate the potentially exculpatory nature of his conduct because it is still ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that his conduct could be used in a future case to impeach his credibility and because it is ‘reasonably capable of being material to guilt or to punishment.’”
The justices did not weigh in on whether or not someone with a disability that impairs their ability to recall facts or tell the truth ought to be in law enforcement in the first place.
